Local PoliticsDiscuss Woman says (Republican) Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14, he was at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by winston53660
Oh hogwash you are talking Obama birther crap! That Trump promoted. Trump is nothing but nasty.
...

he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

I don't like Roy Moore, in fact I think he's a stinking POS, but in Alabama in that time period, 14 wasn't that big a deal.
I know how it sounds and I'm not taking up for anyone here especially the "great" state of Alabama but, there it is.

if these allegations are to be accepted as they appear. And the result should be that he NOT be in politics AT ALL because of it, then Trump, and Clinton should be (should HAVE been) assumed guilty and "stepped aside" as well.
Not to mention Wiener, Barney Franks, Ted Kennedy and several other politicians of the left and right.

...

to be fair, clinton never was accused of sexual assault of a minor, and so far neither were barney or ted.

to be fair, clinton never was accused of sexual assault of a minor, and so far neither were barney or ted.

No Bill was accused of full blown rape on more than one occasion.. not just abuse.
And Barney Frank had a live in lover that ran a prostitution ring out of Franks home and had been convicted of owning child porn. link
I didn't mention Denis Hastert that had full blown child rape allegations that were ignored until AFTER he left office

"to be fair"

__________________Hope is the dream of the waking man.Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.Job 14:6-8

Oh hogwash you are talking Obama birther crap! That Trump promoted. Trump is nothing but nasty.

Is this a tu quoque argument?

Just because Donald Trump claimed something unproven, it is therefore okay for others to do the same thing?

Wow!

Using that line of reasoning, then if Bill Cosby is convicted of sexual misconduct, it would be just hunky-dorey for others to follow suit...

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

(1) The accusation came some 38 years--almost four decades!--after the alleged incident; and just in time to do the maximum damage to Judge Moore. Perhaps that is coincidence--for those who believe in coincidences...

(2) It is, of course, possible that this is true--I have no proof that it is not--but I did not know that people were required to prove a negative in this country.

(3) It has always been my impression that people in this country were considered innocent until proven guilty. One wonders just how this squares with the continual howls (even from fellow Republicans) for Judge Moore to quit his current campaign.

(4) To do so would simply reinforce the impression (of some) of his ostensible guilt. (Why, after all, would an innocent man step down?)

(5) Some people claim that the victims (?) did not speak out in 1979 because of the shaming to which they would have likely been subjected then. But if 1979 was fraught with peril for them, why did they not say something in, say, 1989? Or 1999? Or even 2009?

One gets the impression that they may be wanting to simply inflict the greatest amount of damage possible...

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

(1) The accusation came some 38 years--almost four decades!--after the alleged incident; and just in time to do the maximum damage to Judge Moore. Perhaps that is coincidence--for those who believe in coincidences...

(2) It is, of course, possible that this is true--I have no proof that it is not--but I did not know that people were required to prove a negative in this country.

(3) It has always been my impression that people in this country were considered innocent until proven guilty. One wonders just how this squares with the continual howls (even from fellow Republicans) for Judge Moore to quit his current campaign.

(4) To do so would simply reinforce the impression (of some) of his ostensible guilt. (Why, after all, would an innocent man step down?)

(5) Some people claim that the victims (?) did not speak out in 1979 because of the shaming to which they would have likely been subjected then. But if 1979 was fraught with peril for them, why did they not say something in, say, 1989? Or 1999? Or even 2009?

One gets the impression that they may be wanting to simply inflict the greatest amount of damage possible...

To add...

Moore has been up for election multiple times before, and this doesn't come out until now?...

Also, this was done at a point where he cannot be removed from the ballot....VERY convenient...

A third point...

If a politician is "supposed" to drop out simply based on accusations (As some have said Moore is supposed to do), then it would be incredibly simple to start paying off women (and men?) to make public accusations (without filing a police report since a false police report is a crime) and smear political enemies with no repercussions...

I agree, how can the guy defend himself against something like this. My question is why him and the rest of the Republicans don't just say it is a lie and go on? I heard even Romney was throwing him under the bus/

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

(1) The accusation came some 38 years--almost four decades!--after the alleged incident; and just in time to do the maximum damage to Judge Moore. Perhaps that is coincidence--for those who believe in coincidences...

(2) It is, of course, possible that this is true--I have no proof that it is not--but I did not know that people were required to prove a negative in this country.

(3) It has always been my impression that people in this country were considered innocent until proven guilty. One wonders just how this squares with the continual howls (even from fellow Republicans) for Judge Moore to quit his current campaign.

(4) To do so would simply reinforce the impression (of some) of his ostensible guilt. (Why, after all, would an innocent man step down?)

(5) Some people claim that the victims (?) did not speak out in 1979 because of the shaming to which they would have likely been subjected then. But if 1979 was fraught with peril for them, why did they not say something in, say, 1989? Or 1999? Or even 2009?

One gets the impression that they may be wanting to simply inflict the greatest amount of damage possible...

I agree, how can the guy defend himself against something like this. My question is why him and the rest of the Republicans don't just say it is a lie and go on? I heard even Romney was throwing him under the bus/

Unlike the GOP, the MFM, Dems and others, who it's safe to say couldn't give two ****s about the alleged victims but are more interested in derailing Moore for political gain, guilty or innocent, I will stand by Roy Moore until it is absolutely proven beyond any doubt that he is guilty of a crime or of behavior that would have obviated my support at the outset of his candidacy. Sadly, as the shabby Dick Gephardt would say, it's not about guilt or innocence, it's all about the seriousness of the charge. So guilty or innocent, odds are Moore may be sunk. That stinks to high heaven and I hope he can overcome what is now a cheap, desperate smear.